meljun cortes accord presentation meljun

8/20/2019 MELJUN CORTES ACCORD Presentation Meljun

1/27

Washington Accord Graduate Attributes:A Metric for the Quality of Engineering

Education Worldwide

MELJUN CORTES MBA MPA MSCS

13 August 2006 1

MELJUN CORTES

MBA MPA MSCS


2/27

• The author has no formal connection with theInternational Engineering Alliance or theWashington Accord.

• The views expressed in this presentation arethose of the author based on 17 years ofexperience gained on accreditation visits inCanada, Costa Rica, India, Korea, and theUnited States.

• The author has been a member of the CanadianEngineering Accreditation Board for 11 years andwas Chair from 2012-2014.

Disclaimer:

13 August 2006 2


3/27

Outline

• Purpose

• WA Background

• WA Graduate Attribute exemplar

– Knowledge Base – Complex Problems

• Role of the GA exemplar

– Not a standard but a metric

• Using the exemplar as a metric

• What can we learn from applying a metric?

313 August 2006


4/27

• The purpose of this presentation is to discussthe concept of worldwide standards for qualityof undergraduate engineering programs

• The purpose of accreditation is to serve thepublic and the profession by continuallyimproving the quality of engineering

education and engineering practice

Purpose

13 August 2006 4


5/27

• The Washington Accord (WA) is an international mutualrecognition agreement (MRA) that has been in place for morethan 25 years and now has 17 signatories and 5 provisionalmembers.

WA Background

13 August 2006 5


6/27

Principles of the MRA

• Accreditation criteria, policies and procedures ofthe signatories have been verified and judgedcomparable (“substantially equivalent”)

• Accreditation decisions made by one signatoryare acceptable to the other signatories

• Make every effort to ensure that the registering /licensing body recognizes signatories’ programs

13 August 2006 6


7/27

Benchmarking Agreement

• The signatories will identify and encouragethe implementation of best practice for theacademic preparation of engineers

– by mutual regular monitoring on a six-year cycle – regular communication and sharing of

accreditation information

– sharing and maintaining lists of accreditedprograms

– invitations to observe accreditation visits andmeetings of any boards

13 August 2006 7


8/27

• Program criteria of signatories are benchmarkedagainst a metric called the WA graduate attributeexemplar

• The exemplar includes: – a defined knowledge base (WK1-8), – a definition problem complexity (WP1-7) and – a defined set of graduate attributes (WA1-12)

• The knowledge base and definition of complexityserve to clarify and interpret the language of theattributes

Graduate Attribute Exemplar

13 August 2006 8


9/27

Knowledge Base

13 August 2006 9

WK1: A systematic, theory-based understanding of the natural sciences applicable to the discipline

WK2:Conceptually-based mathematics, numerical analysis, statistics and formal aspects of computer and

information science to support analysis and modelling applicable to the discipline

WK3: A systematic, theory-based formulation of engineering fundamentals required in the engineering

discipline

WK4:Engineering specialist knowledge that provides theoretical frameworks and bodies of knowledgefor the accepted practice areas in the engineering discipline; much is at the forefront of the discipline.

WK5: Knowledge that supports engineering design in a practice area

WK6: Knowledge of engineering practice and the practice areas in the engineering discipline

WK7:Comprehension of the role of engineering in society and identified issues in engineering practicein the discipline: ethics and the professional responsibility of an engineer to public safety; the

impacts of engineering activity: economic, social, cultural, environmental and sustainability

WK8: Engagement with selected knowledge in the research literature of the discipline

A program that builds this type of knowledge and develops the appropriate attributes is typically achieved in 4 to 5 years of study.


10/27

Characteristics of Complex Problems

WP1

WP2 Involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical, engineering and other issues

WP3 Have no obvious solution - require abstract thinking, originality in analysis toformulate suitable models

WP4 Involve infrequently encountered issues

WP5 Are outside problems encompassed by standards and codes of practice for

professional engineering

WP6 Involve diverse groups of stakeholders with widely varying needs

WP7 Are high level problems including many component parts or sub-problems

Cannot be resolved without in-depth engineering knowledge at an advanced level

1013 August 2006


11/27

• Ability to deal with complex problems is explicitly specifiedfor most (8 of 12) attributes in the WA exemplar

• The ability to address complex problems in their academicpreparation is usually the distinguishing feature of aprofessional engineer relative to an engineering

technologist or technician

• Complex problems are defined as requiring: – advanced engineering knowledge and – one or more characteristic from WP2 to WP7:

• Wide-ranging

• Originality• Rarity• Outside codes• Diverse stakeholders• High-level

Significance of Complex Problems

13 August 2006 11


12/27

• Each signatory defines the standards for againstwhich engineering educational programs areaccredited within their jurisdictions

• WA graduate attributes form a set of measurable

outcomes

• WA graduate attributes are clear, succinct statementsof expected capability (competencies)

• WA graduate attributes are intended primarily toassist signatories and provisional members todevelop outcomes based accreditation criteria for useby their respective jurisdictions

Role of WA Graduate Attributes

13 August 2006 12


13/27

• The WA graduate attributes do not constitute an“international standard” for accredited programs

• The WA exemplar is simply one way of organizingthe competencies to be delivered in anundergraduate engineering program

• But it does provide a widely accepted common frameof reference within which bodies can describe theoutcomes of substantially equivalent programs

Limitations of WA Graduate Attributes

13 August 2006 13


14/27

Attributes

13 August 2006 14

WA1: Engineering Knowledge:

Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering

specialization as specified in WK1 to WK4 respectively to the solution of complex engineer ing

problems.

WA2: Problem Analysis:

Identify, formulate, research literature and analyse complex engineer ing problems reaching

substantiated conclusions using first principles of mathematics, natural sciences and engineering

sciences. (WK1 to WK4)

WA3: Design:

Design solutions for complex engineer ing problems and design systems, components or

processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety,

cultural, societal, and environmental considerations. (WK5)

WA4: Investigation:

Conduct investigations of complex engineer ing problems using research-based knowledge (WK8)

and research methods including design of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, and

synthesis of information to provide valid conclusions.

WA5: Modern Tool Usage:

Create, select and apply appropriate techniques, resources, and modern engineering and IT tools,

including prediction and modelling, to complex engineer ing problems , with an understanding of the

limitations. (WK6)

WA6: The Engineer and Society:

Apply reasoning informed by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety, legal and

cultural issues and the consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice and

solutions to complex engineer ing problems . (WK7)

WA7: Environment and Sustainability:Understand and evaluate the sustainability and impact of professional engineering work in the

solution of complex engineer ing problems in societal and environmental contexts. (WK7)

WA8: Ethics: Apply ethical principles and commit to professional ethics and responsibilities and norms of

engineering practice. (WK7)

WA9: Individual and Team Work: Function effectively as an individual, and as a member or leader in diverse teams and in multi-disciplinary settings.

WA10: Communication:

Communicate effectively on complex en gineering activit ies with the engineering community and

with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design

documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions.

WA11: Project Management and Finance:

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of engineering management principles and economic

decision-making and apply these to one’s own work, as a member and leader in a team, to manage

projects and in multidisciplinary environments.

WA12: Lifelong Learning:Recognize the need for, and have the preparation and ability to engage in independent and life-long

learning in the broadest context of technological change.


15/27

• The attributes provide a framework but do not set arigid standard – a knowledge base is defined (but only in general terms) – problem complexity is defined but……

• Even clear and succinct statements of attributes

leave room for legitimate interpretation

• The WA exemplar is something to measure ourselvesagainst – a metric not a mandatory set of regulations

• We can perhaps agree that the WA exemplar issomething we can all aspire to and use as a“yardstick” to measure our progress

The Exemplar is a Metric

13 August 2006 15


16/27

• Do we all mean the same thing when we say: – “appropriate consideration”, – “apply reasoning”, – “function effectively”, – “communicate effectively”, – “commit to professional ethics and responsibilities”

– “first principles of mathematics and natural sciences”?

• Can we group the components that make up the set ofattributes differently?

– is twelve a magic number?• Can we use more or less attributes?• Can we eliminate some attributes?• Do we need to add more attributes?

– where do graduate attributes end …… – and professional competencies begin?

Interpretation and Ambiguity

13 August 2006 16


17/27

• How do the criteria we use in our jurisdictionmatch up?

Using the Exemplar as a Metric

13 August 2006 17


18/27

Are All Performance Levels Equal?

13 August 2006 18

E n g i n e e r i n g K n o w l e d g e

P r o b l e m A n a l y s i s

D e s i g n

I n

v e s t i g a t i o n

M o d e r n T o o l U s a g e

T h e E n g i n e e r a n d S o c i e t y

E n v i r o n m e n t a n d S u s t a i n a b i l i t y

E t h i c s

I n

d i v i d u a l a n d T e a m W o r k

C o m m u n i c a t i o n

P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t a n d F i n a n c e

L i f e l o n g L e a r n i n g

W A 1 :

W A 2 :

W A 3 :

W A 4 :

W A 5 :

W A 6 :

W A 7 :

W A 8 :

W A 9 :

W A 1 0 :

W A 1 1 :

W A 1 2 :

Exceeds x x x x

Fully meets x x x x

Marginally meets x x

Does not meet x x

Criteria

Alignment

Analysis


19/27


• How do we distribute time and resources

toward the delivery each attribute?


13 August 2006 19


20/27

Are All Attributes Equal?

13 August 2006 20

P r o b l e

m A n a l y s i s

D e s i g n

I n v e s t i g a t i o n

M o d e r n T o o l U s a g e

T h e E n

g i n e e r a n d S o c i e t y

E n v i r o

n m e n t a n d S u s t a i n a b i l i t y

E t h i c s

I n d i v i d

u a l a n d T e a m W o r k

C o m m

u n i c a t i o n

P r o j e c

t M a n a g e m e n t a n d F i n a n c e

L i f e l o n

g L e a r n i n g

WK1:

Natural

Sciences

WK2:

Mathematics

WK3:

Engineering

Fundamentals

WK4:

Discipline-

Specific W A 2 :

W A 3 :

W A 4 :

W A 5 :

W A 6 :

W A 7 :

W A 8 :

W A 9 :

W A 1 0 :

W A 1 1 :

W A 1 2 :

Exceeds x x x x x x x

Fully meets x x x x

Marginally meets x x

Does not meet x x

Criteria

Alignment

Analysis

WA1: Engineering Knowledge


21/27



toward the delivery each attribute?• How do our accredited programs perform for

each attribute?


13 August 2006 21


22/27

Is Acceptable Performance a Range?

13 August 2006 22


23/27



toward the delivery each attribute?• How do our accredited programs perform for

each attribute?

• What changes might we want to consider

….or even encourage?


13 August 2006 23


24/27

Is This Our Aspiration?

13 August 2006 24


25/27

• Remember that the WA exemplar and our jurisdictional criteria are “living documents”

• They will change as we learn and adopt newtechnologies and practices in striving toimprove the quality of our programs

• Standing still is not an option!

Final Thought

13 August 2006 25


26/27

Questions?

2613 August 2006


27/27

For more information:Email: [email protected]

Phone: 613-232-2474 *The terms P.ENG. and ING. are official marks held by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

meljun cortes accord presentation meljun

Documents